On 17.07.2011 02:56, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em 16-07-2011 12:53, Andreas Oberritter escreveu: >> On 16.07.2011 17:44, Antti Palosaari wrote: >>> On 07/16/2011 06:40 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>>> On 16.07.2011 16:54, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>>> Em 16-07-2011 11:16, Antti Palosaari escreveu: >>>>>> On 07/16/2011 03:25 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>>>>> Em 15-07-2011 20:41, Antti Palosaari escreveu: >>>>>>>> On 07/15/2011 08:01 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 15.07.2011 15:25, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Em 15-07-2011 05:26, Ralph Metzler escreveu: >>>>>>>>>>> At the same time I want to add delivery system properties to >>>>>>>>>>> support everything in one frontend device. >>>>>>>>>>> Adding a parameter to select C or T as default should help in most >>>>>>>>>>> cases where the application does not support switching yet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I understood well, creating a multi-delivery type of frontend >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> devices like DRX-K makes sense for me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We need to take some care about how to add support for them, to >>>>>>>>>> avoid >>>>>>>>>> breaking userspace, or to follow kernel deprecating rules, by >>>>>>>>>> adding >>>>>>>>>> some legacy compatibility glue for a few kernel versions. So, >>>>>>>>>> the sooner >>>>>>>>>> we add such support, the better, as less drivers will need to >>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>> a "fallback" mechanism. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The current DVB version 5 API doesn't prevent some userspace >>>>>>>>>> application >>>>>>>>>> to change the delivery system[1] for a given frontend. This >>>>>>>>>> feature is >>>>>>>>>> actually used by DVB-T2 and DVB-S2 drivers. This actually >>>>>>>>>> improved the >>>>>>>>>> DVB API multi-fe support, by avoiding the need of create of a >>>>>>>>>> secondary >>>>>>>>>> frontend for T2/S2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Userspace applications can detect that feature by using >>>>>>>>>> FE_CAN_2G_MODULATION >>>>>>>>>> flag, but this mechanism doesn't allow other types of changes like >>>>>>>>>> from/to DVB-T/DVB-C or from/to DVB-T/ISDB-T. So, drivers that >>>>>>>>>> allow such >>>>>>>>>> type of delivery system switch, using the same chip ended by >>>>>>>>>> needing to >>>>>>>>>> add two frontends. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe we can add a generic FE_CAN_MULTI_DELIVERY flag to >>>>>>>>>> fe_caps_t, and >>>>>>>>>> add a way to query the type of delivery systems supported by a >>>>>>>>>> driver. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>> http://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis/FE_GET_SET_PROPERTY.html#DTV-DELIVERY-SYSTEM >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think it's necessary to add a new flag. It should be >>>>>>>>> sufficient >>>>>>>>> to add a property like "DTV_SUPPORTED_DELIVERY_SYSTEMS", which >>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>> read-only and return an array of type fe_delivery_system_t. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Querying this new property on present kernels hopefully fails with a >>>>>>>>> non-zero return code. in which case FE_GET_INFO should be used to >>>>>>>>> query >>>>>>>>> the delivery system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In future kernels we can provide a default implementation, returning >>>>>>>>> exactly one fe_delivery_system_t for unported drivers. Other drivers >>>>>>>>> should be able to override this default implementation in their >>>>>>>>> get_property callback. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One thing I want to say is that consider about devices which does >>>>>>>> have MFE using two different *physical* demods, not integrated to >>>>>>>> same silicon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you add such FE delsys switch mechanism it needs some more glue >>>>>>>> to bind two physical FEs to one virtual FE. I see much easier to >>>>>>>> keep all FEs as own - just register those under the same adapter >>>>>>>> if FEs are shared. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case, the driver should just create two frontends, as >>>>>>> currently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's a difference when there are two physical FE's and just one FE: >>>>>>> with 2 FE's, the userspace application can just keep both opened at >>>>>>> the same time. Some applications (like vdr) assumes that all multi-fe >>>>>>> are like that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this mean demod is not sleeping (.init() called)? >>>>>> >>>>>>> When there's just a single FE, but the driver needs to "fork" it in >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> due to the API troubles, the driver needs to prevent the usage of both >>>>>>> fe's, either at open or at the ioctl level. So, applications like vdr >>>>>>> will only use the first frontend. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lets take example. There is shared MFE having DVB-S, DVB-T and >>>>>> DVB-C. DVB-T and DVB-C are integrated to one chip whilst DVB-S have >>>>>> own. >> >> One remark: In my previous mail I assumed that in your example DVB-S and >> either DVB-C or DVB-T can be tuned simultaneously, i.e. there are two >> antenna connectors and two tuners in addition to the two demod chips. If >> this assumtion was wrong, then of course approach 2 is the sane one, not >> approach 3. >> >>>>>> Currently it will shown as: >>>>> >>>>> Let me name the approaches: >>>>> >>>>> Approach 1) >>>>>> * adapter0 >>>>>> ** frontend0 (DVB-S) >>>>>> ** frontend1 (DVB-T) >>>>>> ** frontend2 (DVB-C) >>>>> >>>>> Approach 2) >>>>>> Your new "ideal" solution will be: >>>>>> * adapter0 >>>>>> ** frontend0 (DVB-S/T/C) >>>>> >>>>> Approach 3) >>>>>> What really happens (mixed old and new): >>>>>> * adapter0 >>>>>> ** frontend0 (DVB-S) >>>>>> ** frontend1 (DVB-T/C) >>>>> >>>>> What I've said before is that approach 3 is the "ideal" solution. >>>>> >>>>>> It does not look very good to offer this kind of mixed solution, >>>>>> since it is possible to offer only one solution for userspace, new >>>>>> or old, but not mixing. >>>>> >>>>> Good point. >>>>> >>>>> There's an additional aspect to handle: if a driver that uses >>>>> approach 1, a conversion >>>>> to either approach 2 or 3 would break existing applications that >>>>> can't handle with >>>>> the new approach. >>>>> >>>>> There's a 4th posibility: always offering fe0 with MFE capabilities, >>>>> and creating additional fe's >>>>> for old applications that can't cope with the new mode. >>>>> For example, on a device that supports >>>>> DVB-S/DVB-S2/DVB-T/DVB-T2/DVB-C/ISDB-T, it will be shown as: >>>>> >>>>> Approach 4) fe0 is a frontend "superset" >>>>> >>>>> *adapter0 >>>>> *frontend0 (DVB-S/DVB-S2/DVB-T/DVB-T2/DVB-C/ISDB-T) - aka: FE superset >>>>> *frontend1 (DVB-S/DVB-S2) >>>>> *frontend2 (DVB-T/DVB-T2) >>>>> *frontend3 (DVB-C) >>>>> *frontend4 (ISDB-T) >>>>> >>>>> fe0 will need some special logic to allow redirecting a FE call to >>>>> the right fe, if >>>>> there are more than one physical frontend bound into the FE API. >>>>> >>>>> I'm starting to think that (4) is the better approach, as it won't >>>>> break legacy >>>>> applications, and it will provide an easier way for new applications >>>>> to control >>>>> the frontend with just one frontend. >>>> >>>> Approach 4 would break existing applications, because suddenly they'd >>>> have to cope with an additional device. It would be impossible for an >>>> existing application to tell whether frontend0 (from your example) was a >>>> real device or not. >>>> >>>> Approach 2 doesn't make any sense to me. >>> >>> I like approach 1 since it is very simple interface. > > Yes: approach 1 has a simple interface. The only issue on that is that it is > not possible to know if fe0 and fe1 can be used simultaneously, or if they're > mutually exclusive. Several userspace applications currently don't work on > that > scenario, where the frontends are mutually exclusive. > > So, if we're going to use approach 1, we need to properly document that > applications > should be prepared for that scenario, and, maybe, adding some way for > userspace > to detect frontend "groups". > >>> Secondly I like >>> approach 2. I think that more API issue than technical. > > Approach 2 limits the usage of two simultaneous fe, when they're not > mutually exclusive. Not sure if this is actually a problem.
This would be a problem, of course. If they're not mutually exclusive, then I'd expect the possibility to use them simultaneously. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
